Talk:Sea Mither/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 07:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a nice article, but it might be worth considering whether or not to expand it slightly and make it a joint article about Sea Mither and Teran, since Teran gets a fair bit of coverage.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is generally nice. There are one or two lines which could perhaps be better phrased, e.g. (starting a sentence with a conjunction is common practice and generally allowed nowadays, but it's still a bit jarring to my mind), but turns of phrase such as  are really rather lovely (despite the query over how you oust someone from their own grip!). No issues with MOS compliance.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Can't access Marwick or the relevant sections of Muir, so I'm going to have to AGF on those; certainly Traill verifies everything it is cited for. I'm a bit dubious about Orkneyjar.com - it's a personal website, and whilst Sigurd Towrie is a professional journalist I've not found evidence that he's regarded as an authority on Orcadian mythology, as required by WP:USERG. Formatting is fine (personally I don't like shortened footnotes, but they're perfectly acceptable as far as Wikipedia's concerned).
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The coverage does throw up a couple of unanswered questions for me; but based on the available sources (and I've had a good hunt around for more, just in case any were missed) the article is comprehensive.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Hard to capture an image of an invisible, mythological being, so I guess a nice picture of calm Orkney seas is as good as anything.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm happy to pass this as soon as the validity of the Towrie source is addressed. now that my concerns about Towie have been laid to rest. Yunshui 雲 水 07:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this, Yunshui. When we first started work on the Orkney/Shetland mythology articles, I initially hesitated about orkneyjar.com so did do some checking. It is used as a reference in a number of Wikipedia articles, including GAs etc, which I appreciate is not really especially strong evidence, so I hunted a bit further. It is used as a reference in several books and Towrie is described as an "Orkney historian" in a couple of newspapers: Obviously the Scotsman has a bit more weight than the Daily Record! If we add 's comment in a very recent Signpost article: "reviewers sometimes want high quality references that don’t exist and enthusiasts’ websites are sometimes all there is to go on. Within reason, there is a place for local knowledge" then hopefully you can agree with using it as a source?   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  08:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to pass this as soon as the validity of the Towrie source is addressed. now that my concerns about Towie have been laid to rest. Yunshui 雲 水 07:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this, Yunshui. When we first started work on the Orkney/Shetland mythology articles, I initially hesitated about orkneyjar.com so did do some checking. It is used as a reference in a number of Wikipedia articles, including GAs etc, which I appreciate is not really especially strong evidence, so I hunted a bit further. It is used as a reference in several books and Towrie is described as an "Orkney historian" in a couple of newspapers: Obviously the Scotsman has a bit more weight than the Daily Record! If we add 's comment in a very recent Signpost article: "reviewers sometimes want high quality references that don’t exist and enthusiasts’ websites are sometimes all there is to go on. Within reason, there is a place for local knowledge" then hopefully you can agree with using it as a source?   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  08:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)